So I didn't watch the Grammys for a multitude of reasons. They're lame, the two or three artists I'm actually interested in never win, and I just dislike awards shows in general.
I must say, however, I am beyond proud of Mumford and Sons for winning Album of the Year for their release "Babel". I already named it the Album of the Year in my "Best of 2012" post; I couldn't have called it any better. I teared up when I saw the tweets and texts from my friends about it; it's one of the greatest moments in music history. They were up against so many other great (and more popular) musicians, and they still freakin' did it. It's gonna be a big year for M&S, which makes me hope and pray they'll come play in my vicinity so I can see them live for the first time!
However, I do have a bit of a dilemma with one of my other favourite bands who took home a couple awards from the Grammys: fun. Now I love fun. and everything they do, and they're a damn talented group of fellas. But can someone please fix the whole "fun.-winning-best-new-artist" thing? THEY'RE NOT NEW. Not even close. "Aim and Ignite" came out in '09, so that hardly constitutes as a "new" release. No way. Also, I kind of hate how they won "Song of the Year". "We Are Young" is a terrible song that only got picked up because the mainstream's been on an indie kick for a while (I mean seriously The Lumineers suck what is everyone doing). Just because the media decided to think that fun.'s a good band and use "Carry On" for a commercial and play "Some Nights" constantly doesn't mean that the songs are actually good. "Some Nights" (the album) is mediocre at best and frankly doesn't deserve much more than some recognition of minimal effort. Regardless, good job, fun.- just release a better album next time 'round.
The Grammys are overrated anyway, but at least one artist got what they deserved.